Anytime a hoaxer harps on about the cost of space programs and how the money should be better spent; I immediately dismiss anything else they have to say, for in that first premise lies all the evidence I need that the person has no clue what they are talking about.
The video is long winded and often rambles on tangents that do nothing to support the claim of hoax.
Never before in all of recorded aviation has a flying machine worked on its first attempt
And neither did any of the apollo program equipment, that's why there was a system of testing performed on earth, this is just another claim from ignorance.
This two part video (1,2) makes a much better refutation of this bunkum than I have the will to commit time to.
The old faked lighting and shadows argument is wrong, false and full of more wishful thinking.
It is my job to create images that convince the general public that a fictional image, or video is real. I work in VFX creating these fictions and I know for a fact that the claims dealing with the imagery being fabricated are, simply, full of shit.
I'm all for assessing the claim the moon landing as being faked. There are plenty of very good reasons the US would have to perpetuate a lie of such magnitude. Yet every hoaxer video I see trots out the same tired, uninformed, ignorant and ultimately, illiterate bullshit.
I know the US is capable of wide scale conspiracy to deceive (bay of pigs, gulf of tonkin, the entire NSA, etc etc). I don't doubt it possible to create a system of conspiracy to hoax a moon landing, but this video presents nothing to support the claim.
Do you know what they call "science" that cant be replicated by other scientists? All that time learning about "science" and you still dont know about the scientific method?
I recommend crack to people removed from reality in the way you clearly are.
Nothing in your original comment makes any sense and is disconnected from rationality or reasoned discussion.
If you were to expand on your premise I may be able to understand it, but at this point you're just another crackpot crazy person screaming from a street corner.
well when the facts aren't breaking your way, just resort to diagnosing mental illnesses and name calling. sounds like a good way to increase your credibility among the lurkers.
That's a good comparison list, thanks I'll use it in future discussions.
But none of it works to bolster your argument, because the core of your argument is the moon landings are not reproducible.
And in a sense this is true, but it is due to the complexity and cost of the experiment, not because it isn't possible.
I understand that you've completely bought into the idea that the moon landings were faked and no amount of discussion can turn you away from that, I'm not trying to change your emotional investment.
But you go on about the scientific method as if you actually understand it and how it applies to this discussion.
I encourage you to use the list you've given and apply it to your earlier comment link, http://davesweb.cnchost.com/Apollo1.html.
What ever facts you think you have you are still falling for the same old lie of 'booo it's too hard and I don't actually understand complex engineering so it's fake'.
I'm very willing to entertain the notion that the apollo program was a hoax, but so far the only evidence for the claim is provided as argument from ignorance.
I know the government has the capacity and will to pull of something like that, I don't doubt it's possible to fake a space program, I just don't think it's probable in this case.
I personally don't seek credibility, because the truth and facts speak independent of anything I say.
The best evidence that the moon landing is fake is obvious to any engineer: the project was completed on time lol.
Your rebuttal video(s) make some good points and the documentary is sloppy in certain areas. But then so is the rebuttal. To the charge that the van allen belts prohibit human travel through them, the dude says:
"the belts are dangerous but there are areas that are less dense and less dangerous and we target those areas in our travel"
Um, no. We targeted the moon. That gave us no more than a degree arc depending on which side we wanted to enter orbit in. Period.
They did four burns. The one that got them into earth orbit, the one that took them out of earth orbit, the one that put them into lunar orbit, and the one that brought them back. He's suggesting they did six. That's wrong.
He also states that aluminum and plexiglass were better materials than lead for the purpose of blocking radiation. This is clearly false as well, and though pointless since we could never have considered using lead owing to the weight, it does nonetheless underscore the fact that, based on our understanding at the time, the very best that could be said is that they were taking an enormous risk with the astronaut's lives here.
But yeah, the documentary presents evidence that the landing was fake but which really just prove it was real. The shadows are very confusing but then think about what kind of lighting would be able to create them. Nothing. Or the business with earth in the window, man I'd be really embarrassed if I were the one suggesting that.
The better question is, do we have a government that is capable doing something like this? Absolutely.
better materials than lead for the purpose of blocking radiation. This is clearly false as well
"Radiation" is a strange thing in that many different types exist in a variety of energies that are harmful to humans, but a simple sheet of paper can stop some of them.
When working with radiation the question is not the type of radiation, but the duration of exposure. The apollo program balanced exposure over time with the risk to the mission.
The rads the astronauts got are still very damaging and has probably affected their heath negatively.
For me the shadows are the least confusing part, but I work with that sort of stuff every day.
The better question is, do we have a government that is capable doing something like this? Absolutely.
I agree completely, I don't believe the moon landing is fake myself but I found this video quite fun to watch. I thought it to be suiting for the conspiracy Subverse.
view the rest of the comments →
VictorSteinerDavion ago
Anytime a hoaxer harps on about the cost of space programs and how the money should be better spent; I immediately dismiss anything else they have to say, for in that first premise lies all the evidence I need that the person has no clue what they are talking about.
The video is long winded and often rambles on tangents that do nothing to support the claim of hoax.
And neither did any of the apollo program equipment, that's why there was a system of testing performed on earth, this is just another claim from ignorance.
This two part video (1,2) makes a much better refutation of this bunkum than I have the will to commit time to.
The old faked lighting and shadows argument is wrong, false and full of more wishful thinking.
It is my job to create images that convince the general public that a fictional image, or video is real. I work in VFX creating these fictions and I know for a fact that the claims dealing with the imagery being fabricated are, simply, full of shit.
I'm all for assessing the claim the moon landing as being faked. There are plenty of very good reasons the US would have to perpetuate a lie of such magnitude. Yet every hoaxer video I see trots out the same tired, uninformed, ignorant and ultimately, illiterate bullshit.
I know the US is capable of wide scale conspiracy to deceive (bay of pigs, gulf of tonkin, the entire NSA, etc etc). I don't doubt it possible to create a system of conspiracy to hoax a moon landing, but this video presents nothing to support the claim.
poly ago
Do you know what they call "science" that cant be replicated by other scientists? All that time learning about "science" and you still dont know about the scientific method?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reproducibility
VictorSteinerDavion ago
Whatever crack you're on, you should up the dose.
poly ago
why would you recommend crack to someone else when it obviously hasn't solved your problems?
VictorSteinerDavion ago
I recommend crack to people removed from reality in the way you clearly are.
Nothing in your original comment makes any sense and is disconnected from rationality or reasoned discussion.
If you were to expand on your premise I may be able to understand it, but at this point you're just another crackpot crazy person screaming from a street corner.
poly ago
well when the facts aren't breaking your way, just resort to diagnosing mental illnesses and name calling. sounds like a good way to increase your credibility among the lurkers.
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CKQC7iKUkAE4zzc.jpg
VictorSteinerDavion ago
That's a good comparison list, thanks I'll use it in future discussions.
But none of it works to bolster your argument, because the core of your argument is the moon landings are not reproducible.
And in a sense this is true, but it is due to the complexity and cost of the experiment, not because it isn't possible.
I understand that you've completely bought into the idea that the moon landings were faked and no amount of discussion can turn you away from that, I'm not trying to change your emotional investment.
But you go on about the scientific method as if you actually understand it and how it applies to this discussion.
I encourage you to use the list you've given and apply it to your earlier comment link, http://davesweb.cnchost.com/Apollo1.html.
What ever facts you think you have you are still falling for the same old lie of 'booo it's too hard and I don't actually understand complex engineering so it's fake'.
I'm very willing to entertain the notion that the apollo program was a hoax, but so far the only evidence for the claim is provided as argument from ignorance.
I know the government has the capacity and will to pull of something like that, I don't doubt it's possible to fake a space program, I just don't think it's probable in this case.
I personally don't seek credibility, because the truth and facts speak independent of anything I say.
Anyone with a sufficiently powerful telescope and laser can check for them selves.
nokilli ago
The best evidence that the moon landing is fake is obvious to any engineer: the project was completed on time lol.
Your rebuttal video(s) make some good points and the documentary is sloppy in certain areas. But then so is the rebuttal. To the charge that the van allen belts prohibit human travel through them, the dude says:
Um, no. We targeted the moon. That gave us no more than a degree arc depending on which side we wanted to enter orbit in. Period.
They did four burns. The one that got them into earth orbit, the one that took them out of earth orbit, the one that put them into lunar orbit, and the one that brought them back. He's suggesting they did six. That's wrong.
He also states that aluminum and plexiglass were better materials than lead for the purpose of blocking radiation. This is clearly false as well, and though pointless since we could never have considered using lead owing to the weight, it does nonetheless underscore the fact that, based on our understanding at the time, the very best that could be said is that they were taking an enormous risk with the astronaut's lives here.
But yeah, the documentary presents evidence that the landing was fake but which really just prove it was real. The shadows are very confusing but then think about what kind of lighting would be able to create them. Nothing. Or the business with earth in the window, man I'd be really embarrassed if I were the one suggesting that.
The better question is, do we have a government that is capable doing something like this? Absolutely.
VictorSteinerDavion ago
"Radiation" is a strange thing in that many different types exist in a variety of energies that are harmful to humans, but a simple sheet of paper can stop some of them.
When working with radiation the question is not the type of radiation, but the duration of exposure. The apollo program balanced exposure over time with the risk to the mission.
The rads the astronauts got are still very damaging and has probably affected their heath negatively.
For me the shadows are the least confusing part, but I work with that sort of stuff every day.
I agree 100%
ScradleyGymson ago
I agree completely, I don't believe the moon landing is fake myself but I found this video quite fun to watch. I thought it to be suiting for the conspiracy Subverse.
poly ago
Wagging the Moondoggie, Part 1
http://davesweb.cnchost.com/Apollo1.html
VictorSteinerDavion ago
In the context of being fun to watch sure, it's a laugh riot.
But conspiracy does not automatically equal batshit insanity with no reasoning or rational thought.
Conspiracy just means a group of people agreeing to do a thing as a group.
It's unfortunate that the term has been tainted in the general mindset by videos like this. It's up there with ancient aliens.
FisherOfMen ago
Thank you Buzzkill Lightyear.
VictorSteinerDavion ago
OK Great!